Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Film and Motrin
Next: Are there any programs that can convert color infra-red photos to actual color?
From: RichA on 16 Jul 2010 15:17 On Jul 16, 9:23 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...(a)optonline.net> wrote: > "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus > > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). > > >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp > > Two things which should be obvious to you: > > 1) the lens will sell for less than MSRP as all of Sigma's lenses do > 2) it's not a kit lens > > You need to find something constructive to do with your time inmstead of > going off half-cocked like you did once again. It's a wide to mid-angle zoom, slightly faster than a kit lens. That's all.
From: Bruce on 16 Jul 2010 15:46 On 16 Jul 2010 15:09:40 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote: >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp >> >> The Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF (phew!) is well made and >> significantly cheaper. It is unlikely to be bettered by the Sigma. > >There's also the Tokina 165 (16-50/2.8 DX), also cheaper and generally >well-regarded I've never seen one, But thanks for reminding me about it. >-- but. > >What differentiates the new Sigma is optical image stabilization and an >internal ultrasonic focus motor. The lenses aren't directly comparable >because of that. Sorry, I had kind of assumed that Tamron had by now updated their lens with a focusing motor so it would work on the D40, D40X, D60 and D80 (and any other Nikon DSLR bodies I may have forgotten which lack the screwdriver drive. Of course Tamron has already done this to other key lenses in their range. > - Solomon [wanting a fast zoom in the 50-100mm range..] You may have a long wait. ;-)
From: Bruce on 16 Jul 2010 16:13 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 16, 2:40�am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus >> Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled >> Four Thirds sensors. > >Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise Not on my D700, it isn't! ;-) > I consider 3:2 sensor a waste because of their format. Yes, you have to crop it quite severely to get to 16:9. Of course you have to crop Four Thirds even more severely, and there isn't really enough image information to start with ....
From: Robert Coe on 16 Jul 2010 17:41 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: : On Jul 16, 2:40�am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: : > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> : > wrote: : > : > >On Jul 15, 7:09�pm, Me <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: : > >> On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA wrote:> $1000 for a fast kit zoom? �Are they insane? �As much as an Olympus : > >> > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). : > : > >> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp : > : > >> Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street price : > >> will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP. : > >> You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in every : > >> performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base that : > >> assumption. �So perhaps it's you who is insane? : > : > >So you think the Sigma will beat the Olympus? �Do you know any other : > >lens companies that measure lenses at 60lppm, including Zeiss or : > >Leica? � : > : > It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus : > Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled : > Four Thirds sensors. : : Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise, I consider 3:2 : sensor a waste because of their format. How can you say that with a straight face? You must know that the trand is towards wider, not higher, formats. Even TV sets and laptop computers no longer use the 4:3 aspect ratio. The 1280x1024 flat-screen monitor is pretty much the last non-wide holdout, and that may be mainly because its 5:4 aspect ratio is moderately convenient when it's used in pairs. Bob
From: Robert Coe on 16 Jul 2010 17:48
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat" <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> wrote: : In article : <49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, : RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: : : > $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus : > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). : : If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off. And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because I'm one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or because Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors and their fanboys? Bob |